I would love to see you at the talk and, uh, talk (maybe over a beer or a coffee) afterwords. I'll also take any and all electronically-delivered feedback I can get. This paper is the core of a manuscript I'm working on, so I would very, very much appreciate comments, suggestions, etc.
Here's the introduction:
Philosopher Jacques
Ranciere argues that biopolitical neoliberalism is the “perfect realization” of
Plato’s Republic: the “managerial state’s…science of simulations of
opinion is the perfect realization of the empty virtue Plato called sophrusune:
the fact of each person’s being in their place” (Disagreement, 106). In Plato, a
harmonics of proportion determined what places there were and who
belonged in which ones (e.g., the myth of the metals); in neoliberalism, a
harmonics of frequency and amplitude (i.e., the statistical modeling of
a sine wave) determines what places there are and who belongs where. Plato’s geometric
concept of harmony organizes society
spatially, while neoliberal sine waves organize society temporally (space is a function of time). As
Michel Foucault explains, the neoliberal state uses biopolitical statistics to
monitor “phenomena that occur over a period of time, which have to be studied
over a certain period of time” so that it can control for “aleatory events that
occur within a population that exists over a period of time (Michel Foucault, SMBD
246). Note Foucault’s language here: it’s not just “time,” but the frequency
(quantity) and amplitude (quality) of occurrences within “a period of time”
that matters. Given the importance of time in biopolitical
neoliberalism, how might the art-historical concept of 4D time-based media help
us understand and critique neoliberal hegemonies? Might thinking about time in
or as 4-dimensional be a distinctively neoliberal understanding of time?
(For example, 2D timelines seem to differ in important ways from 4D frequencies
and amplitudes; the sine wave as 2D model of 4D phenomenon of
intensity/vibration/radiation.)
The difference between classically liberal and neoliberal regimes of
visuality is widely discussed. Steven Shaviro’s Post-Cinematic Affect is
an excellent account of ways neoliberalism manifests as strategies and tactics
for visual/cinematic composition, and his work has certainly informed my
thinking. I argue that sound studies and transational feminisms are productive,
and, actually, necessary resources for theorizing neoliberalism and visuality. In
A Critique of Postcolonial Reason, Guyatri Spivak explains, via Marx,
how liberalism turns on the slippage between concepts of Darstellung—artistic
representation—and Vertretung—political representation. I argue that
classically liberal “representation” is 2D and Cartesian, while neoliberal
“representation” is 4D and sonic. It is no coincidence that many
transnational feminist theorists use sonic concepts to describe 4D, often
explicitly neoliberal configurations of gender/race/sexuality. I will examine
two such accounts: Alia Al-Saji’s phenomenology of “critical-ethical vision,”
and Jasbir Puar’s Deleuzian/Foucaultian account of “superpanopticism.” First, I explain classical
liberalism’s 2D Cartesian episteme—what Alia Al-Saji calls “objectifying”
visuality. I then contrast this to Jasbir Puar’s concept of superpanopticism,
which I argue is 4D in the art-historical sense. After establishing the
two-dimensionality of classically liberal Darstellung and the
four-dimensionality of neoliberal Darstellung, I then, in the third
section, argue that 4D Darstellung is most productively theorized
through sonic epistemologies. Neoliberalism works like a sine wave;
mathematically, sine waves can do the statistical, probabilistic work that
characterizes neoliberal biopolitics. Thus, in the final section, I use the
concept of “transmission” to explain how sine waves manifest politically, as
neoliberal Vertretung. I also consider what sorts of art practices could
potentially challenge or frustrate neoliberal Vertretung/Darstellung.
If neoliberalism produces macro-level stability through micro-level flexibility
(overall regulation through ‘deregulation’), then what is the critical
potential of a practice in which there is no flexibility at all, e.g., total
serialism?
No comments:
Post a Comment